U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

Peter S. Desimone v. Velma Linford, Etc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 31, 1974 · Brown, Godbold, Per Curiam, Simpson

494 F.2d 1186; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8377 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Howard Moore, Jr., Elizabeth R. Rind-skopf, John R. Myer, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant., Beverly Bates, Asst. U. S. Atty., John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for def endants-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.

Federal Trade Commission v. Gibson Products of San Antonio, Inc. (5th Cir. 1978)
J.P. v. Cherokee County Board of Education (11th Cir. 2007)
Tropicana Products Sales, Inc. v. Phillips Brokerage Company and Dole Packaged Foods Company (11th Cir. 1989)
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States (5th Cir. 1976)
Bennie Stone Gooden, Jr., Etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross v. Mississippi State University, Etc., Defendants-Appellants-Crossappellees (5th Cir. 1974)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was discharged from his position as a Deputy Director of ACTION Recruitment pursuant to a general reduction in force. Appellant sought administrative review through two levels in the United States Civil Service Commission. In the meantime he requested a preliminary injunction ordering reinstatement pending a final determination of his administrative appeal. The District Court denied the requested equitable relief and this appeal followed. 1

A first level decision by the Civil Service Commission’s Appeals Examining Office denying appellant all requested relief was rendered prior to oral argument. Subsequent to argument, that decision was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review bringing appellant’s administrative appeal to a conclusion. Since the sole issue raised on appeal to this Court is a challenge to the District Court’s denial of injunctive relief pending a final decision of the administrative appeal we are compelled to vacate the order and remand the case to the District Court to dismiss it as moot. National Lawyers Guild, University of Texas Chapter v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir., 1974, 490 F.2d 97; United States Serviceman’s Fund v. Killeen Independent School District, 5 Cir., 1974, 489 F.2d 693; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 1950, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; St. Pierre v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S. Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199; Troy State University v. Dickey, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516-517; New Left Educ. Project v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir., 1973, 472 F.2d 218, 221; Lebus, Regional Director v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 281, 283; United States v. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n, 5 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 1231.

Vacated and remanded.

. Cf, Hampson v. Murray. 1974, 415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.26 166; Arnett v. Kennedy, 1974, -U.S. -, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.